Creating a successful bikeshare scheme in the West Midlands Transport for West Midlands Emma Beech (Cycling Development Officer)

Summary Context Progress to date Lessons Learnt so far

Context Started investigating bikeshare in May 2016 Novel approach as looking at a region wide scheme with 7 Local Authority areas Started by a feasibility study investigating the demand, sponsorship and operational model. As part of study ‘open day’ to understand the market and the options available. Needed to be low cost to WMCA area

Why a cross border bikeshare scheme? Aims to get more people cycling – 1.8% average across West Midlands Cycling Charter – collaborate, equity in the region for cycling. 57% journeys are cross border Several dense cities and towns 67% of journeys under five miles

Why a cross border bikeshare scheme? High growth projected and population increase by 444,000 by 2030 Opportunities with other modes growth and capacity – HS2, Metro, Rail and rapid transit Political support for cycling and walking Our smartcard for transport SWIFT – cross-border and multi-modal integration.

Progress to date Stage 1 Stage 2 Stage 3 Objectives Policy links Opportunities Working group Stage 2 Feasibility study Feasibility study open day Research – Lessons Learnt Stage 3 Business models Lessons learnt from other schemes Next Steps: Mobilisation

Bikeshare Development: Key Lessons Stage 1 Clear objectives from onset – market (tourist, commuter, last mile), integration with transport modes and SWIFT ticketing, increasing cycling levels to 5% by 2023. Conducted market research Feasibility study commissioned- enabled a high level revenue and capital costings and the worth of sponsorship.

Key Lessons: Stakeholders Stage 1 Set up a project group – regular contact and sharing of information and progress is key to visibility and decision making especially with 7 LA’s. Think outside ‘transport box’ and how can Public Health and policy colleagues support. This can help support monitoring and benefits realisation. On feasibility study – overlaid demand with health data to understand overlap. Although no a determining variable of demand.

Links to other opportunities Stage 1 Mobility as a Service (MaSS) pilot in Birmingham Cycling routes – canal upgrades (Wolverhampton to Birmingham), segregated cycleways planned. Birmingham – Common wealth games SWIFT

Key Lessons: Feasibility Study Stage 2 Stage 1 Open Day – opportunity to understand market and operations High level potential scale of demand Understanding of value of sponsorship – useful for sponsorship negotiation. Being open from onset: explored if docked, dockless or a hybrid scheme may fit best? There is no right or wrong. About what fits best with objectives. Docked solution key to objectives of integration to network

Key Lessons: Research! Research! Stage 1,2 and 3 Stage 1 Strong links to policy objectives – Movement for Growth, Physcial Activity Strategy, Growth plans, Clean air zones, Air quality Academic papers, Bikeplus survey – evidence BikePlus teleconference Get in contact with other bikeshare schemes including docked and dockless Lessons learnt – find out what has worked and what has not Media – awareness, public opinion Visit a scheme or two and use as a user

Helen Pidd, Twitter, BikePlus Survey (2016), BikePlus Website (2017)

Key Lessons: Business Model Stage 3 Key Lessons: Business Model Funding/financing will to an extent to determine the business model. Consider where you want the risk to lie – business, shared or Local Authority/Combined Authority Consider equity issues that may arise from a model. Consider long term sustainability – is there revenue support in the long run? Sponsorship is going to be key.

100% Publically Managed 100% Privately Managed Partnership Approach Authority pays for all costs, manages income and owns equipment. The supplier asks for flat fee for management. • Retendering is easier as assets are the Combined/Local Authorities • Control is stronger over branding and integration with the transport network. - Public operations tend to be inefficient and incur higher costs - Potential conflict between the supplier of equipment and operator as intellectual property must be shared between potential competitors 100% Privately Managed Operator owns assets, takes risks and sets tariff • No public subsidies involved • Cost-efficient system for the public sector • Low feasibility in cities without good sponsorship / advertisement potential • Relies on the operator’s skills to secure funding • Relatively low control by public sector Partnership Approach Supplier responsible for commercial income/profit share. Some subsidy from authority is needed for capital. Ownership of assets is usually by operator. -Government has control to specify service levels and requirements • - Operator will aim to reduce the gap funding (for revenue by sponsorship) • - Well balanced risk bearing between public and private stakeholders • Assets sometimes can`t be used for operations after contract termination and being 100% depreciated. BikePlus (2015) https://www.carplusbikeplus.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/Bike-Share-Procurement-Guidance-HI-RES.pdf

Political Support Starting to raise bikeshare on the agenda Stage 2 and 3 Political Support Starting to raise bikeshare on the agenda Can help speed the process of delivery Long term – a champion for cycling Long term ambition for cycling – improving infrastructure West Midland’s Mayor, Andy Street.

Next Steps Mobilisation

Thank you for all the support from BikePlus TfGM TfL Milton Keynes ITP Nottingham City Council